RCP/LM front organisations
Gerry the Gerbil
Does anyone know of organisations that are currently fronts for the
RCP/LM? (I'm not too bothered about old front orgs like Workers
Against Racism and the Irish Freedom Movement as they seem to be
moribund these days.) IMO it's important that we know about them as
articles in LM by spurious independent organisations, such as "the
football supporters' network Libero!" (see Gary Dale's start of the
thread "Kicking the soul out of football") and the Campaign for
Internet Freedom, appear to lend independent support for the RCP/LM's
party line even though they're written by RCP/LM members.
I'm particularly worried about this seemingly non-existent "Libero!"
organisation, as going by their past record the RCP will use it to put
a spanner in the works of genuine supporter's campaigns, and the
current state of football is a cause very close to my heart. (Of
course, it might actually be a real organisation, although as Gary
Dale was silent in response to my request for further info about it,
Yahoo! and Altavista searches return nothing, and there's no mention
of it on footie index websites, the probability of this is small,
IMHO. )
I'll be away from work, and thus Usenet, until Monday, and as I'll be
busy I won't have time to respond to flames, so don't waste your time
posting them.
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
Gerry the Gerbil
I've just come across my first reference to Libero! in an article by
Adam Hibbert for London Student
(http://www.londonstudent.org.uk/8issue/comment/libero.htm). Hibbert
is a prominent "supporter of LM" on Usenet, particularly in
alt.politics.socialism.trotsky (see his posting history in DejaNews).
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
Big Mac
On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 17:49:12 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
Gerbil) wrote:
>Does anyone know of organisations that are currently fronts for the
>RCP/LM?
Haven't you heard? The RCP has been disbanded. I guess you'll have
to take your sectarian campaign somewhere else (is there anywhere
else?)
Louis N Proyect
[The book summarizes the events in the trial of 22 SS men who served in
the death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau. Like most of the trials of SS men
who served in the death camps, this one was conducted by the German
legal system, according to the German penal code of 1871].
"The fifty-eight-year-old Munich grocer Ludwig Worl, a stocky, powerful
Bavarian, now takes the witness stand.
In the summer of 1943 - the witness, a former senior camp inmate,
testifies - a ghetto not far from Auschwitz was cleaned out and
30,000-40,000 people gassed and cremated in the huge crematories of
Birkenau. An SS officer "for some reason or other" put the children
into his, Worl's, care. Worl thought they were saved, because at the
end of 1943 a new camp commandant came to Auschwitz. Hoess was
succeeded by Liebehenschel, whom the SS later on replaced because he was
too soft. He stopped the selections and had the notorious standing cell
demolished.
But one day on January, 1944, there was another selection: 600 sick
prisoners unable to work were sorted out and sent to the gas chambers.
Worl thought that a transport to another camp was being assembled in
front of the laundry, when suddenly he was surrounded by the children in
his care. They clutched at his legs imploringly and told him that they
were to be gassed with the others.
"Even the four and five-year-old knew it. They rolled up their shirts
and showed me their little arms: 'Look how strong we are'."
Worl, appalled, rushed over to Dr. Rohde and asked him to notify
Liebehenschel immediately. The medical officer called headquarters
and received the devastating information that the selection had been
ordered by Berlin. There was nothing to be done.
Worl ran out to the camp street and saw the defendant Kaduk, pistol in
hand, driving the pleading children towards the gas chambers.
Worl jumps out from the witness chair and shouts: "Where is Kaduk? You
shoved a pistol against their backs, like this, and this", and he
demonstrates how Kaduk drove the children on." (Naumann, 114)
[Oswald Kaduk was sentenced to life imprisonment by the court, for
taking part in many murders in Auschwitz]
Work Cited
Naumann, Bernd. Auschwitz: A Report on the Proceedings Against
Robert Karl Ludwig Mulka and Others Before the Court at Frankfurt.
New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1966
Gerry the Gerbil
On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 20:45:51 GMT, macdo...@ferengi.co.uk (Big Mac)
wrote:
Firstly, the RCP lives on in the guise of LM, as is well known. For
instance, Justin "psycho" Flude posted a message to a.p.s.t on
28/11/97 in the thread "RCP (again!) (Was Famous Politicians . . . )"
describing how to become a RCP member and what you have to do, even
though the RCP was officially disbanded a year or so previously. (I
can post the message again if you really want, but I suggest you just
look it up in DejaNews.)
Secondly, I'm not a Trot or even a Marxist - I'm an anarchist - so I'm
not being sectarian. What I am, however, is someone who's passionately
concerned about what's happening to English football, and I'm not
going to let the bloody RCP do to supporter's campaigns what they
tried to with the anti-fascist and Troops Out campaigns, which was to
fuck them up for their own ends by deliberately being disruptive.
Now, if the RCP just wants to shaft other Trot organisations or
middle-class lefties it's no skin off my snout, but if they try stick
their middle-class noses into working-class football supporters'
campaigns just to pursue their own secretive agenda I'll make damn
sure everyone knows what they're up to and who's behind this
supposedly "independent supporters' organisation" Libero!
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
Cliff Morrison
In article <3527ab6b...@news5.newscene.com>, munc...@sunflower.seeds
(Gerry the Gerbil) wrote:
Or has some other outfit got designs on football fans and is worried that
the RCP might inadvertently step on their toes?
Still can't understand why the RCP are so hated, when all they seem to be
trying to do is offer an alternative, and nowadays absent, line in a
dialectical analysis of society. That's what makes LM so interesting, coz
whether or not they agree with their arguments, it makes people think a
bit more about everything.
Big Mac
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 16:20:04 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
Gerbil) wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 20:45:51 GMT, macdo...@ferengi.co.uk (Big Mac)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Apr 1998 17:49:12 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
>>Gerbil) wrote:
>>
>>>Does anyone know of organisations that are currently fronts for the
>>>RCP/LM?
>>
>>Haven't you heard? The RCP has been disbanded. I guess you'll have
>>to take your sectarian campaign somewhere else (is there anywhere
>>else?)
>
>Firstly, the RCP lives on in the guise of LM, as is well known.
Nope, the RCP is defunct. Seriously. It no longer exists. It is a
dead party. That's it. Kaput. Wound up. Publication titles sold.
No Leninist vanguard, no supporters/members, just a magazine and its
contributors and readers. You can't join it. You can only buy it and
read it.
>Secondly, I'm not a Trot or even a Marxist - I'm an anarchist - so I'm
>not being sectarian.
Hahahaha. As far as I can see, the only thing you seem to post are
scurrilous attacks on the RCP. Why not take this opportunity, now
that the party is over, to get a life and post something political
instead?
>What I am, however, is someone who's passionately
>concerned about what's happening to English football, and I'm not
>going to let the bloody RCP do to supporter's campaigns what they
>tried to with the anti-fascist and Troops Out campaigns, which was to
>fuck them up for their own ends by deliberately being disruptive.
It did? What tosh and nonsense. The RCP never even lowered itself to
the radical British nationalism of an "anti-fascist campaign", you
dummy. And quite how a magazine can have "front organisations", only
an anarchist wu-master of r-r-revolutionary organisation can work out.
>Now, if the RCP just wants to shaft other Trot organisations or
>middle-class lefties it's no skin off my snout, but if they try stick
>their middle-class noses into working-class football supporters'
>campaigns just to pursue their own secretive agenda I'll make damn
>sure everyone knows what they're up to and who's behind this
>supposedly "independent supporters' organisation" Libero!
Gosh Gerry, all this passion in pursuit of attacking one small and now
defunct left-wing party. Is this really the only way you can get your
kicks nowadays, old timer?
Just why exactly are you so hostile to the RCP, anyway? As the left
are so fond of pointing out, there were a number of bigger and more
influential "Trotskyist" groups for an anarchist to pick on (snigger).
I feel sure that at the bottom of your angst and ire there is a
personal anecdote struggling to get out.
Come on Gerry, tell us all about it. You had a nasty experience with
the RCP when you were a student, that seems to be clear. Spill the
beans and attain, ahem, closure ...
Big Mac
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 18:21:42 +0000, cli...@post.almac.co.uk (Cliff
Morrison) wrote:
>In article <3527ab6b...@news5.newscene.com>, munc...@sunflower.seeds
>(Gerry the Gerbil) wrote:
>
>> Now, if the RCP just wants to shaft other Trot organisations or
>> middle-class lefties it's no skin off my snout, but if they try stick
>> their middle-class noses into working-class football supporters'
>> campaigns just to pursue their own secretive agenda I'll make damn
>> sure everyone knows what they're up to and who's behind this
>> supposedly "independent supporters' organisation" Libero!
>
>Or has some other outfit got designs on football fans and is worried that
>the RCP might inadvertently step on their toes?
>Still can't understand why the RCP are so hated,
I think Gerry has personal reasons for hating the old RCP that have
eclipsed his better political judgement, the poor sod.
Louis N Proyect
On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Cliff Morrison wrote:
> Still can't understand why the RCP are so hated, when all they seem to be
> trying to do is offer an alternative, and nowadays absent, line in a
> dialectical analysis of society. That's what makes LM so interesting, coz
> whether or not they agree with their arguments, it makes people think a
> bit more about everything.
>
They are not hated by the right-wing. They are hated by the left. It is a
libertarian outfit that was repudiated definitively on this newsgroup.
There is one asshole by the name of David Stevens who likes their
procapitalist garbage, but everybody else has their number. This includes
a rather wide spectrum (Holmes, Hurd, Diamond, me, Walters, Levenstein,
etc.) I see you and "Big Mac" are trying to breathe some life into this
stinking corpse here. Good luck, you'll need it.
Louis Proyect
Fred Ferguson: mprinter@earthlink.net
[I don't ordinarily spend time corresponding with snitches--unless it
is to tell them about Victor Serge's character in "Conquered City" who
was a spy for the Tzar's secret police. Nevertheless, I think this bit
of self-agrandizement by Proyect needs to be answered].
Wrong, as usual Louis.
While I do not subscribe to LM, I do get "Revolution", the Australian
magazine of people who are co-thinkers of LM, and I find their
"Libertarian" ideas very interesting.
James Cannon once said of such folks: "I dearly love the word freedom.
I am really an anarchist at heart, and have only made a concession on
the party question". (I don't have the original source at hand).
I don't want anyone telling me what is Politically Correct this week
in Ann Arbor--I am a Marxist and a Trotskyist and I developed the
habit at an early age of thinking for myself. When necessary, I've
been known to call a spade a fucking shovel.
From what I've seen--that's exactly what LM/Revolution does.
Fraternally,
Fred Ferguson
Gary Dale
gg>I'm particularly worried about this seemingly non-existent "Libero!"
Why are you worried about something that is 'non existent'?
What else do you worry about, cameras implanted in your brain?
gg>organisation, as going by their past record the RCP will use it to put
gg>a spanner in the works of genuine supporter's campaigns, and the
gg>current state of football is a cause very close to my heart.
Well if Libero was a one-man organisation it would qualify as
'independent' and genuine organisation. In fact it would be a model
of anarchist praxis. So what are you - a supposed anarchist - whining
about?
The whole point of Libero seemed to me to be about how football
has been drained of soul and made respectable for the more refined
middle classes. This is was is usually meant by 'genuine' supporters
campaigns - the ones that bend over backwards to gain respectability
from the nulabour/football establishment, a sanitised sport watched
for the likes of David Mellor et al. But you, klutz that you
are, have inverted this, saying that sanitising censorship is
not the issue, and that Libero is a middle class organisation
mucking it up for the 'genuine' (i.e. more middle class) people
like yourself who wouldn't be seen dead amongst the great
unwashed!
Gerry the Gerbil
On 6 Apr 1998 08:22:07 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>The whole point of Libero seemed to me to be about how football
>has been drained of soul and made respectable for the more refined
>middle classes. This is was is usually meant by 'genuine' supporters
>campaigns - the ones that bend over backwards to gain respectability
>from the nulabour/football establishment, a sanitised sport watched
>for the likes of David Mellor et al. But you, klutz that you
>are, have inverted this, saying that sanitising censorship is
>not the issue, and that Libero is a middle class organisation
>mucking it up for the 'genuine' (i.e. more middle class) people
>like yourself who wouldn't be seen dead amongst the great
>unwashed!
You're blustering, Gary old mate. What I want to know is - is Libero!
a RCP/LM front or not? If not, where can I get more info on it? Simple
questions - any chance of simple answers?
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
>
>
>
Gary Dale
>In article <3527ab6b...@news5.newscene.com>, munc...@sunflower.seeds
>(Gerry the Gerbil) wrote:
>> Now, if the RCP just wants to shaft other Trot organisations or
>> middle-class lefties it's no skin off my snout, but if they try stick
>> their middle-class noses into working-class football supporters'
>> campaigns just to pursue their own secretive agenda I'll make damn
>> sure everyone knows what they're up to and who's behind this
>> supposedly "independent supporters' organisation" Libero!
>Or has some other outfit got designs on football fans and is worried that
>the RCP might inadvertently step on their toes?
>Still can't understand why the RCP are so hated, when all they seem to be
>trying to do is offer an alternative, and nowadays absent, line in a
>dialectical analysis of society. That's what makes LM so interesting, coz
>whether or not they agree with their arguments, it makes people think a
>bit more about everything.
It's amazing the nerve of this guy: you'll note he always posts
his cranky theories anonymously before ranting on about exposing
who is 'behind' different organisations. Who his 'behind' Gerry
the rodent? I think we should be told. But even if we are, it
won't make his posts any more interesting.
--Gary
"LM is the most interesting and provocative magazine I have
read in many years. It has found a new centre ground where
libertarian and anti-authoritarian ideas are given complete
freedom" - J G Ballard
Gerry the Gerbil
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 18:00:47 GMT, macdo...@ferengi.co.uk (Big Mac)
wrote:
>Just why exactly are you so hostile to the RCP, anyway? As the left
>are so fond of pointing out, there were a number of bigger and more
>influential "Trotskyist" groups for an anarchist to pick on (snigger).
>I feel sure that at the bottom of your angst and ire there is a
>personal anecdote struggling to get out.
No, not really. The RCP/LM came to my attention again recently after
they were alleged to have been behind a controversial Channel 4 series
called "Against Nature". As time's gone on I've found no reason to
believe they weren't, and circumstantial evidence to show that they
were (including the prominent presence of Frank Furedi in both the
programmes and the debate afterwards). So it seems to me that their
policy of 'media entrism' (my term) and selective recruitment amongst
students is paying off handsomely, and that they've managed to get a
lot of coverage for a tiny ex-Trot sect. (I say "ex", because the
defining characteristic of the RCP is that it's neither revolutionary
nor communist, and LM barely mentions Marxism in its pages.)
Of course, Dale, Hibbert, and Flude would maintain that this is
because of the force of their innovative ideas and "Enlightenment
thinking", but it looks to me, from glancing through the material on
the LM website (www.informinc.co.uk), that many of their ideas are
taken from the American libertarian right, with the exception of a few
UK-relevant wind-ups (eg support for the IRA). A more likely
explanation for their current success is the presence of well-placed
members in the media.
If they remained a tiny uninfluential sect which didn't affect real
life I wouldn't be bothered about them, but on recent evidence they're
most definitely 'punching above their weight' and are still a force
for potential disruption on the Left.
>Nope, the RCP is defunct. Seriously. It no longer exists. It is a
>dead party. That's it. Kaput. Wound up. Publication titles sold.
>No Leninist vanguard, no supporters/members, just a magazine and its
>contributors and readers. You can't join it. You can only buy it and
>read it.
Did you read Flude's post which I mentioned previously? He didn't seem
to think it was dead. And if it's just a mag, why do Gary Dale, Adam
Hibbert, and (although not recently) Justin Flude always post the LM
'party line'? They're all singing from the same songsheet, which
argues for some degree of party discipline in my view. Of course, if
any of them are willing to say that they're posting as individuals
that would be a different matter...
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
Gerry the Gerbil
On 6 Apr 1998 10:15:42 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>It's amazing the nerve of this guy: you'll note he always posts
>his cranky theories anonymously before ranting on about exposing
>who is 'behind' different organisations.
Ok, a number of questions then:
1. Was the RCP/LM directly or indirectly involved in the making of the
Against Nature series of documentaries?
2. Is Libero! a front organisation for the RCP/LM, or does it have an
independent genesis?
3. Is the Campaign for Internet Freedom a RCP/LM front organisation?
A simple "no" to each question from Gary Dale, Adam Hibbert, or Justin
Flude, or any other "supporter of LM", and I'm away to do something
more interesting than post on Usenet (eg, watch a tortoise race). Over
to you, boys.
> Who his 'behind' Gerry
>the rodent? I think we should be told.
Nobody - I'm an individual speaking and writing for myself. Unlike
you, Gary old chum, I don't just parrot the party line. My opinions
may be bollox, but at least they're my bollox.
>But even if we are, it
>won't make his posts any more interesting.
So why read them, hmmm? If I'm that tedious bung me in your killfile -
there are more important people than me to flame on these NGs.
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
Gary Dale
In <3528a988...@news5.newscene.com> munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the Gerbil) writes:
>On 6 Apr 1998 08:22:07 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>>The whole point of Libero seemed to me to be about how football
>>has been drained of soul and made respectable for the more refined
>>middle classes. This is was is usually meant by 'genuine' supporters
>>campaigns - the ones that bend over backwards to gain respectability
>>from the nulabour/football establishment, a sanitised sport watched
>>for the likes of David Mellor et al. But you, klutz that you
>>are, have inverted this, saying that sanitising censorship is
>>not the issue, and that Libero is a middle class organisation
>>mucking it up for the 'genuine' (i.e. more middle class) people
>>like yourself who wouldn't be seen dead amongst the great
>>unwashed!
>You're blustering,
This is your version of halling up the white flag then? Oh dear...
I take it you are one of those who wants to sanitise football
and make it respectable for 'genuine' supporters like yourself....
>Gary old mate. What I want to know is - is Libero!
>a RCP/LM front or not? If not, where can I get more info on it? Simple
>questions - any chance of simple answers?
I don't know: how can a non-existent thing be a front for something
else which is non-existent? Please explain.
What I want to know is WHAT IS YOUR REAL name?
Stop dodging and answer the question!
Is it too complicated for you? Or are 'they' coming to get you?
Big Mac
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 10:10:01 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
Gerbil) wrote:
>What I want to know is - is Libero!
>a RCP/LM front or not? If not, where can I get more info on it? Simple
>questions - any chance of simple answers?
Look Gerry, I don't what your problem is - perhaps you've seen one too
many Bond movies, or you simply have an overactive imgaination - but
your best bet for finding out all about Libero! is to phone them up
and say hello, I reckon.
I'd love to help you with their number and address, but until your
post I'd never heard of them, and that's the truth, whatever your
paranoid fantasies might prefer hearing.
As for the "party line" that you claim is being strictly adhered too,
you can get a sneak preview of some of the thinking behind it ... by
taking out a sub to LM. It's as sinister and as undercover as that.
(Quite honestly Gerry, I'm a little surprised at your hostility if it
isn't rooted in that incident when Frank Furedi spilled your pint at
the Poly. I would have thought that LM's disbanding of its Leninist
side and its new focus on individual freedoms would be quite the cup
of tea for an aspiring anarchist.)
Gary Dale
In <3528aead...@news5.newscene.com> munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the Gerbil) writes:
>On 6 Apr 1998 10:15:42 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>>It's amazing the nerve of this guy: you'll note he always posts
>>his cranky theories anonymously before ranting on about exposing
>>who is 'behind' different organisations.
>Ok, a number of questions then:
Right, so you are dodging the quesiton again...
>1. Was the RCP/LM directly or indirectly involved in the making of the
>Against Nature series of documentaries?
>2. Is Libero! a front organisation for the RCP/LM, or does it have an
>independent genesis?
>3. Is the Campaign for Internet Freedom a RCP/LM front organisation?
All of them are of 'independent gensis' - people make their own initiatives.
Some might have been in the RCP or associated with LM, but then that
independent party always did attract (if not demand) the sort of people
who could take their own initiatives.
>>Who his 'behind' Gerry
>>the rodent? I think we should be told.
>Nobody - I'm an individual speaking and writing for myself. Unlike
You are nobody? No: you are '*a* nobody' - but I guessed that.
Stop this craven dodging and reveal your name.
>you, Gary old chum, I don't just parrot the party line. My opinions
>may be bollox, but at least they're my bollox.
What party? There isn't a party. The party is over. It's their
party and they disband if they want to, disband if they want to.
(You would disband too if it happened to you....)
Every contributer to LM is 'an individual speaking and writing for
him/herself'. Just as every contributor to Against Nature and
the producers were same. (The cranks here were the environmentalists,
who complained because they couldn't trust themselves to open their
mouths before the nations TV without rendering themselves utter
fools). Just as the person behind Libero is same. You are the crank
who believes in brainwashing cults and other such moon-beam ideas.
Therapy would be too good for you.
>>But even if we are, it
>>won't make his posts any more interesting.
>So why read them, hmmm? If I'm that tedious bung me in your killfile -
>there are more important people than me to flame on these NGs.
Sometimes the rantings of a fool have comic interest. There's
another crank like you on the apst ng - I saved one of his rants
somewhere, it regularly creases me up.
--Gary
"LM is the most interesting and provactive magazine I have
read in many years. It has found a new centre around where
libertarian and anti-authoritarian ideas are given complete
freedom" - J G Ballard.
Big Mac
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 10:25:20 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
Gerbil) wrote:
>Of course, Dale, Hibbert, and Flude would maintain that this is
>because of the force of their innovative ideas and "Enlightenment
>thinking", but it looks to me, from glancing through the material on
>the LM website (www.informinc.co.uk), that many of their ideas are
>taken from the American libertarian right, with the exception of a few
>UK-relevant wind-ups (eg support for the IRA). A more likely
>explanation for their current success is the presence of well-placed
>members in the media.
Gerry's trying to ponder LM's new high profile in the UK. What does
he reckon lies behind it? Is it:-
1. 'the force of their innovative ideas and "Enlightenment thinking"'
2. 'many of their ideas are taken from the American libertarian right,
with the exception of a few UK-relevant wind-ups'
or
3. 'the presence of well-placed members in the media'
Or indeed, all three. LM has been carefully infiltrating members in
the media so as to launch an all-out campaign of American libertarian
wind-ups and thus help promote Enlightenment thinking.
Glad we got that sorted out, then.
Big Mac
On 6 Apr 1998 10:15:42 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>It's amazing the nerve of this guy: you'll note he always posts
>his cranky theories anonymously before ranting on about exposing
>the rodent? I think we should be told. But even if we are, it
>won't make his posts any more interesting.
Darwin would have said that Gerry the Reptile was behind him. But
Darwin was probably disappointed the way that Gerry turned out.
Big Mac
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 10:38:26 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
Gerbil) wrote:
>1. Was the RCP/LM directly or indirectly involved in the making of the
>Against Nature series of documentaries?
>2. Is Libero! a front organisation for the RCP/LM, or does it have an
>independent genesis?
>3. Is the Campaign for Internet Freedom a RCP/LM front organisation?
>
>Flude, or any other "supporter of LM", and I'm away to do something
>more interesting than post on Usenet (eg, watch a tortoise race). Over
>to you, boys.
N N OOO
NN N O O
N N N O O
N NN O O
N N OOO (better in a fixed font)
>So why read them, hmmm? If I'm that tedious bung me in your killfile -
>there are more important people than me to flame on these NGs.
Who said that?
Gary Dale
I wrote:
Well if Libero was a one-man organisation it would qualify as
'independent' and genuine organisation. In fact it would be a model
of anarchist praxis. So what are you - a supposed anarchist - whining
about?
I note the rodent excised this section in his reply. I take it this
vermin doesn't have an answer?
Gerry the Gerbil
On 6 Apr 1998 10:51:32 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>I take it you are one of those who wants to sanitise football
>and make it respectable for 'genuine' supporters like yourself....
Hardly - anyone who saw and heard me in the crowd at last Saturday's
match would hardly call me a "sanitiser". You ever been to a match,
Gary? If so, you'd know how difficult it is to 'sanitise' the fans -
Man Utd are trying it now (eg, by trying to ban standing), but even
with the increasing number of Nick Hornby wannabes at Old Trafford
they're having a hard time of it.
As for "respectable", it would be a curious version of "respectable"
society that put up with the robust language and emotions at a
football match. You ought to try going sometime, Gary - after all,
you've got Hibs and Hearts nearby, or even Livingstone.
>>Gary old mate. What I want to know is - is Libero!
>>a RCP/LM front or not? If not, where can I get more info on it? Simple
>>questions - any chance of simple answers?
>
>I don't know: how can a non-existent thing be a front for something
>else which is non-existent? Please explain.
Ok. The LM article you forwarded on the 1st April quoted "Duleep
Allirajah, from the football supporters' network Libero!", and the
article by Adam Hibbert for London Student
(http://www.londonstudent.org.uk/8issue/comment/libero.htm) describes
Libero! as "the new supporters’ network" founded in the 1996/97
season.
Apart from those references, though, I can find nothing about the
organisation in any of the major search engines, or on football
supporter organisations websites, eg Football Supporters Association
(http://www.fsa.org.uk/), When Saturday Comes
(http://www.wsc.co.uk/wsc/). A friend and fellow supporter, who
usually has his finger on the pulse when it comes to supporters
organisations and campaigns (he's helped the Brighton and Doncaster
campaigns, has publicised the Hillsborough victims struggle for
justice, was prominently involved in the two Fans United days, etc)
has never heard of Libero!
So, LM and a "supporter of LM", Adam Hibbert, say that Libero! exists,
so presumably it does, but no-one else has heard of it. So, once
again, is Libero! a front organisation for the RCP/LM?
>What I want to know is WHAT IS YOUR REAL name?
Why do you want to know? What I write matters more than who I am. Or
are you just frustrated that you can't target your insults?
>Stop dodging and answer the question!
No dodging - I won't answer it. I waste enough time at work as it is
on Usenet without having a mailbox full of flames, and if you knew who
I was, and therefore where I worked, you could complain to my
employers about improper use of their Internet connection. (I don't
think they'd be too bothered, mind, but you can never tell these
days.)
>Is it too complicated for you? Or are 'they' coming to get you?
Nope. My reasons for using a stupid handle have been outlined before
in reply to you, and I'm not going to waste time writing them again.
My questions to you remain - please either answer them, or say that
you won't answer them. TIA.
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
Gerry the Gerbil
On 6 Apr 1998 11:19:16 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>You are nobody? No: you are '*a* nobody' - but I guessed that.
>Stop this craven dodging and reveal your name.
No. But then as a "nobody" my name and opinions are unimportant. Makes
me wonder why you spend so much time refuting the rubbish written by
this "nobody", Gary...
>fools). Just as the person behind Libero is same. You are the crank
>who believes in brainwashing cults and other such moon-beam ideas.
>Therapy would be too good for you.
I note the tone of the insults increases as you're put under pressure.
I've never talked of "cults" or "brainwashing". Sorry, mate, when it
comes to insults you'll need to take some more lessons from Justin.
>>1. Was the RCP/LM directly or indirectly involved in the making of the
>>Against Nature series of documentaries?
>>2. Is Libero! a front organisation for the RCP/LM, or does it have an
>>independent genesis?
>>3. Is the Campaign for Internet Freedom a RCP/LM front organisation?
>All of them are of 'independent gensis' - people make their own initiatives.
>Some might have been in the RCP or associated with LM, but then that
>independent party always did attract (if not demand) the sort of people
>who could take their own initiatives.
That's a pretty equivocal answer, from which I dare say other readers
will draw their own conclusions.
>Sometimes the rantings of a fool have comic interest. There's
>another crank like you on the apst ng - I saved one of his rants
>somewhere, it regularly creases me up.
Hmm, you seem to getting wound up rather than amused, Gary. It would
be nice if my posts did make you laugh, though - I enjoy spreading
happiness and good cheer.
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
Gerry the Gerbil
<MAJOR SIGH> Listen, mate, if I replied to your messages line by line
I'd never get any work done, and I'd certainly bore the shit out of
anyone reading these groups (if I haven't put them to sleep already).
I thought you were making a rhetorical point, not a serious one.
Still, now that you've asked, this anarchist wouldn't consider a
"one-man organisation" to be an organisation at all, but an individual
action - what's there to organise, eh?
As to what I'm "whining about", if Libero! were an organisation that
organically arose from fans - ie, they formed it themselves - I
wouldn't have any problem with it. However, if, as it increasingly
appears, it's an organisation created by the RCP/LM to further its own
ends then I'll make sure that other fans in real fans organisations
know about it. By "real fans" organisations, I mean those that have
been created by fans for fans, an anarchist model of organisation if
ever I saw one. I'd have thought even Marxists would approve of
worker's organisations created by and for the workers themselves...
Now could you please quit the bluster and insults and answer the
questions I've asked, or just say that you're not going to answer them
(perhaps because you don't reply to a "nobody" and a "crank" who is
beyond even "therapy").
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
Big Mac
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 13:04:07 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
Gerbil) wrote:
>wouldn't have any problem with it. However, if, as it increasingly
>appears, it's an organisation created by the RCP/LM to further its own
>ends then I'll make sure that other fans in real fans organisations
>know about it.
You're as mad as Louis Proyect. He actually claimed to have harangued
the editor of Merlin Press because they dared to publish a book by
John Gillott, a well-known soldier of SMERSH^H^H^H^H^ writer for LM.
Now you're taking up the witch-hunt against a radical magazine.
Perhaps you two could form an International and save the world for us,
eh?
Gary Dale
gg>My questions to you remain - please either answer them, or say that
gg>you won't answer them. TIA.
Stoy lying, I have answered them.
Gary Dale
gd>What I want to know is WHAT IS YOUR REAL name?
gg>Why do you want to know? What I write matters more than who I am. Or
gg>are you just frustrated that you can't target your insults?
I'm not at all frustrated just amused by your constant wriggling -
especially since all your questions have been definitively answered.
Your argument above applies to LM writers, Libero and everyone else.
However, at least we know their names, it's only YOU who are hiding.
And *you* are the one obsessed with hidden agendas because
you are unable to effectively respond to what people write
but prefer insults and insinuation based on *who* writes them.
So put your money where your mouth is: tell us your
real name and stop these craven antics.
Louis N Proyect
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Big Mac wrote:
> You're as mad as Louis Proyect. He actually claimed to have harangued
> the editor of Merlin Press because they dared to publish a book by
> John Gillott, a well-known soldier of SMERSH^H^H^H^H^ writer for LM.
> Now you're taking up the witch-hunt against a radical magazine.
> Perhaps you two could form an International and save the world for us,
> eh?
Actually, it was Monthly Review I harangued. Merlin published
Gillot/Kumar's book and MR picked it up without having reviewed the
Gillot/Kumar-LM connection thoroughly. The Gillot/Kumar book is relatively
acceptable, except for the occasional snipe against people like Rachel
Carsons. John Bellamy Foster is reviewing it in the next MR, by the way.
However, when MR was alerted to the fact that LM was pro-nuke, pro-Project
Cassini, pro-turning the Amazon rainforest into toothpicks, pro-World Bank
Dams in Narmada, anti-Affirmative Action, pro-Silicon breast implants,
anti-bans on tobacco advertising, publishing the articles of cryptofascist
Ron "Wise Use" Arnold, anti-campaigns against child labor, pro-global
warming, etc., they probably made the decision never to pick up another
title written by one of Furedi's cult members again.
Louis Proyect
Big Mac
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998 09:49:56 -0400, Louis N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu>
wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Big Mac wrote:
What influence you wield, Louis. You are indeed the Big Swinging Dick
of the sensible Left, no mistake.
Gary Dale
A verminous rodent wrote:
gg>wouldn't have any problem with it. However, if, as it increasingly
gg>appears,
You mean as you increasingly fabricate in your heat-oppressed
mind. You wanna get out more.
gg>it's an organisation created by the RCP/LM to further its own
gg>ends then I'll make sure that other fans in real fans organisations
gg>know about it.
What 'ends' would they be? Opposing the an unprecedented censorship
infrastructure imposed on the working class with northern Ireland-style
surveillance in case someone says the wrong word, and backed by
'genuine' supporters? Do you agree with these 'ends'? Are you too
working for LM? What is your real name?
We should be told.
Big Mac
On 6 Apr 1998 14:03:56 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>
>
>A verminous rodent wrote:
>
>gg>wouldn't have any problem with it. However, if, as it increasingly
>gg>appears,
>
>You mean as you increasingly fabricate in your heat-oppressed
>mind. You wanna get out more.
He keeps trying. But the wheel goes round and round and round and ...
Gerry the Gerbil
On 6 Apr 1998 14:03:56 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>What 'ends' would they be? Opposing the an unprecedented censorship
>infrastructure imposed on the working class with northern Ireland-style
>surveillance in case someone says the wrong word, and backed by
>'genuine' supporters? Do you agree with these 'ends'?
"Unprecedented"? Where've you been these last few seasons, Gary old
mate? Not at a football ground, to be sure. In some grounds you get
coppers telling you to shut up or be nicked if you call the referee a
"fucking bastard", and I've seen people thrown out of grounds and/or
arrested for bad language by both stewards and police (I saw this
happen on Saturday, as it happens, one of our fans being nicked for
being a little pissed and using the word "cunt" loudly).
As for NI-style "surveillance", that's been in place for years now but
this is the first peep I've heard from the RCP/ LM about it. Sure I
oppose censorship and surveillance - if any racists need to be shut up
us supporters will do it ourselves, thankuverymuch - for a whole bunch
of reasons (see my reply to your first post on the thread "Kicking the
soul out of football), not least because supporters hate being caged,
controlled, and generally treated like zoo animals.
And what do you mean "backed by 'genuine' supporters"? I've never said
or implied that either I, or any other supporter I know, backs these
measures. This is an old trick of yours, to put words in other
people's mouths, but you're not getting away with it this time. You
want to put the boot into me, do it with words I've written, not what
you've invented, or with what you think I think, or whatever.
Frankly, you and the RCP/LM are out of your depth talking about
football. I'd lay even money that not one of the editorial staff of
LM, or the RCP/LM spokespeople on Usenet, or even Furry Frank Furedi
himself, are football supporters. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
In the meantime I'll continue to assume that you don't know what
you're talking about when it comes to football.
>What is your real name?
>
>We should be told.
Why? I don't see you demanding to know Mister Lardy Pants' real name,
even though he's far busier on these NGs than me. Still, he does
support LM positions, eh? Or maybe you know him already, hmmm?
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
Big Mac
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 17:36:11 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
Gerbil) wrote:
>Frankly, you and the RCP/LM are out of your depth talking about
>football. I'd lay even money that not one of the editorial staff of
>LM, or the RCP/LM spokespeople on Usenet, or even Furry Frank Furedi
>himself, are football supporters. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
>In the meantime I'll continue to assume that you don't know what
>you're talking about when it comes to football.
You are wrong, as usual. Prominent footie fans amongst LM writers
include the editor, Mick Hume, and Alan Harding, as well as a number
of other less famous names. LM has been carrying articles on football
since its earliest issues, while the RCP polemicised against the moral
panics over "football hooligans" from its inception. You can verify
this very easily by checking out the LM index on the web-site, if you
like.
One of the best and funniest debates I ever went to at an RCP
conference was over the 1990 World Cup, where Mick Hume and others
fiercely argued against Frank Furedi and other reprobates over whether
it was acceptable to support the national team in the competition, or
whether that would be a concession to chauvinism.
Hume and the England / Ireland supporters won :)
Ghost of Pants
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 17:36:11 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
Gerbil) wrote:
>even though he's far busier on these NGs than me.
I'm dead. And I never supported LM, either.
Louis N Proyect
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Big Mac wrote:
> What influence you wield, Louis. You are indeed the Big Swinging Dick
> of the sensible Left, no mistake.
Big swinging dick? What does sex have to do with this? I am merely trying
to alert the left that a neo-Larouchite phenomenon is evolving, namely
Furedi's cult, the ex-RCP. Quite a remarkable development indeed. I
remember when Larouche broke with Marxism back in the early 70s. It was
around the same sort of issues: the need for the capitalist class to be
more aggressive in its drive to accumulate capital, the threat to the
system posed by ecologists, etc. The only difference between Furedi and
Larouche is that Furedi is not a fascist. He is a libertarian as he told
the bourgeois press in the aftermath of the "Against Nature" backlash. The
phenomenon of Trotskyists becoming ardent supporters of capitalist
expansion certainly is fascinating in a morbid sort of way, like looking
at ghastly photos of congenital diseases in a medical textbook.
Louis Proyect
creb...@antares.com.br
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95qL.9804...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu>,
Louis N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
Well, from what I can gather, LM's marxism bases itself on concept that the
development of productive forces more or less automatically creates the
climate necessary to the existence of a more tolerant and open society, and so
of itself prepares the transition to socialism - that is, a cross of
Bernstein's Marxism with Post-Modernism. I do not support it, but I do not
feel how they should not be taken as part of the Marxist camp- yet. However,
the Brazilian prez, FH Cardoso (who had, in his past drunk out of the
poisoned cup of marxism,as Trotsky said of Tsertelli, and was one of the most
proeminent authors of the so-called dependency school) long ago came to the
conclusion that Marxism is creating a favourable climate to foreign investors-
and eventually left the Marxist *political* camp due to the kind of policies
he tended to favour. I would only like to know what's LM tance towards the
present Brazilian government, specially after the recent megafire (or
mega-arson)in the Northern tip of Brazil has made international headlines
Carlos Rebello
> On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Big Mac wrote:
>
> > You're as mad as Louis Proyect. He actually claimed to have harangued
> > the editor of Merlin Press because they dared to publish a book by
> > John Gillott, a well-known soldier of SMERSH^H^H^H^H^ writer for LM.
> > Now you're taking up the witch-hunt against a radical magazine.
> > Perhaps you two could form an International and save the world for us,
> > eh?
>
> Actually, it was Monthly Review I harangued. Merlin published
> Gillot/Kumar's book and MR picked it up without having reviewed the
> Gillot/Kumar-LM connection thoroughly. The Gillot/Kumar book is relatively
> acceptable, except for the occasional snipe against people like Rachel
> Carsons. John Bellamy Foster is reviewing it in the next MR, by the way.
> However, when MR was alerted to the fact that LM was pro-nuke, pro-Project
> Cassini, pro-turning the Amazon rainforest into toothpicks, pro-World Bank
> Dams in Narmada, anti-Affirmative Action, pro-Silicon breast implants,
> anti-bans on tobacco advertising, publishing the articles of cryptofascist
> Ron "Wise Use" Arnold, anti-campaigns against child labor, pro-global
> warming, etc., they probably made the decision never to pick up another
> title written by one of Furedi's cult members again.
>
> Louis Proyect
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Gary Dale
gg>Why? I don't see you demanding to know Mister Lardy Pants' real name,
gg>even though he's far busier on these NGs than me
Because Mister Lardy Pants wasn't obsessed with exposing
'secretive agendas' as a diversion from engaging with ideas.
This is what you do *and* hide behind anonymity yourself.
Have you seen the film the "Tall Guy"? You know the bit
with the surgeon doing the op. ...."oh no, I don't understand,
what this; it is quite extraordinary, this man as NO SPINE,
he is TOTALLY SPINELESS".
That's you, that is.
Gary Dale
cm>nowadays absent, line in a dialectical analysis of society.
Well that's fancy talk. Think of it like this:
X> makes seductive, commonsensical proposal
LM> "No, no, no I couldn't possibly agree with that...."
Richard Caley
In article <6gcrun$n...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, Gary Dale (gd) writes:
X> makes seductive, commonsensical proposal
LM> "No, no, no I couldn't possibly agree with that...."
I think you need to delete `seductive, commonsensical' from the above
scenario.
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Gary Dale
>In article <6gcrun$n...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, Gary Dale (gd) writes:
>X> makes seductive, commonsensical proposal
>LM> "No, no, no I couldn't possibly agree with that...."
>I think you need to delete `seductive, commonsensical' from the above
>scenario.
Maybe - the flight from the rational 'n all.
However, even green cranks can appear commonsensical these days -
which doesn't mean you cannot give'em enough rope on a documentary
to see them for what they are: making utter fools of themselves
before the nation, and then demanding protection from their own
stupidity.
Plonkers.
Gerry the Gerbil
On 7 Apr 1998 08:30:24 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>gg>Why? I don't see you demanding to know Mister Lardy Pants' real name,
>gg>even though he's far busier on these NGs than me
>
>Because Mister Lardy Pants wasn't obsessed with exposing
>'secretive agendas' as a diversion from engaging with ideas.
>This is what you do *and* hide behind anonymity yourself.
Well, as you know from our past encounters, Gary me old mucker, I'm
quite prepared to "engage with ideas", but sadly the RCP/LM has
nothing new in the way of "ideas" and you never come out with any of
your own ideas because you have to follow the RCP/LM party line. The
only latitude you have when posting is in the insults you use, which
truth be told aren't very creative for an ex-Trot (have a word with
Justin - he'll set you right).
As the old cliche goes, it's no fun having a battle of wits with an
unarmed opponent.
>Have you seen the film the "Tall Guy"? You know the bit
>with the surgeon doing the op. ...."oh no, I don't understand,
>what this; it is quite extraordinary, this man as NO SPINE,
>he is TOTALLY SPINELESS".
>
>That's you, that is.
Ah well, another insult to add to the list. So far I'm a "crank", a
"nobody", a "wanker", "spineless", a "klutz" (didn't know you had the
Yiddish, Gary), a "fool", "vermin", and so far gone that "therapy
would be too good" for me. Nothing we can teach you about "engaging
with ideas" eh, mate?
Yet, for all that I'm so contemptible and my accusations so cranky,
you still spend time and effort attacking me. Now, if I were to walk
into my local and some crazy was blathering on about how JFK wasn't
assassinated but instead abducted by mafia-backed aliens I'd avoid him
like the plague - I sure as hell wouldn't waste time talking to him.
To you, I'm even crankier, yet instead of putting me in your killfile
you waste time coming after me.
So, either you're a glutton for punishment, or maybe this irritating
little rodent is proving to be a minor thorn in the side of the RCP/LM
and you're under orders to act as Rentokil.
Anyway, I've had enough of this thread, which as usual generated far
more heat than light. I shan't be "engaging with ideas" on Usenet for
a bit as ideas are as rare as diamonds in dungheaps on the nests of
vipers that go by the name of 'newsgroups', but I will be poking my
snout in now and again to see if this Libero! emerges.
Ok, thread read, 10-10, I'm gone, ciao, arrivederci, hasta la
vista,...
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
Big Mac
On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 22:14:55 -0600, creb...@antares.com.br wrote:
>In article <Pine.GSO.3.95qL.9804...@ciao.cc.columbia.edu>,
> Louis N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Well, from what I can gather, LM's marxism bases itself on concept that the
>development of productive forces more or less automatically creates the
>climate necessary to the existence of a more tolerant and open society, and so
>of itself prepares the transition to socialism
I have to disagree, Carlos. LM has always been very strong on the
precisely opposite view - that progress is not automatic but the
product of conscious social struggle. Today the idea of progress -
and struggling for it - is more discredited than it has ever been, to
put it mildy.
The position you outline above is more applicable to LM's opponents,
who seem to think that no matter how heavy or prolonged the defeats of
the working class this century, fundamentally nothing ever changes.
That's why the likes of Bill Gilders can talk of "classic Maxist
positions", surely the exact antithesis of the Marxist outlook, while
certain space-cadets idly muse on the "great" prospects for revolution
when it's more off the agenda than at any time since 1789 - entirely
due to specific ideological reasons that can be analysed and have been
in LM.
LM's fundamental position is that the barrier to the realisation of
the human potential today is NOT the capital / wage-labour
relationship. Human society is more and more refusing to approach
that traditional Marxist barrier, prefering not to find out the limits
to expansion by pushing capitalism forward, but instead reigning
society back. It is the subjective consciousness of "natural" limits
on human endeavour which prevents humanity realising progress. Once
those subjective limits have been dealt with, the currently obscured
objective limits of capital will become clear and challengable. But
revolution is blocked while the anti-human outlook prevails.
Gary Dale
Vermin wrote:
[blah, blah, blah]
No, you are not prepared to engage in ideas: you 'assumed' a representation
of LM's views on footie based on fabrication and speculation. That's
not engagement with ideas; just bone-idle dismissiveness.
So stop ranting and give us your name - without the tantrum.
Gerry the Gerbil
On 7 Apr 1998 10:44:42 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>So stop ranting and give us your name - without the tantrum.
No tantrums from me mate - you're the one losing your rag. Anyway, I
thought the RCP/LM was pretty hot on individual privacy and freedom of
speech on the Internet? For instance, Angus Kennedy's article on the
Campaign for Internet Freedom website
(http://www.netfreedom.org/uk/angus.html), which appears to be a
definitive document setting out the RCP/LM's position, refers to the
EFF - which is strongly in favour of privacy on the Internet - as an
"exemplary freedom of speech organisation", and the whole tone of the
article is pro-freedom and pro-confidentiality.
[Don't bother looking in the access logs for my IP address - I used
www.anonymizer.com, another website favourably reviewed by LM.]
So, do I and others have a right to confidentiality on the Internet,
or not? If we do, then why are you challenging it?
Anyway, you can demand my name until you're blue in the face, but
you'll never get it. You can, of course, accuse me of cowardice, and
some readers might believe that my views are worth less than if posted
under my real name, but I can live with that - this is only Usenet,
after all. Of course, it would be the work of a moment to come up with
a real-sounding name and legit email address, but I figure a stupid
handle at least makes it plain that I'm writing anonymously.
Oh, and get yourself a decent news client, will you? Or learn how to
reply properly - I never know which message you're replying to.
Now, I really must pack this in - I should be down the pub at lunch
hour, not scribbling on Usenet.
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
Big Mac
On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 09:55:23 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
Gerbil) wrote:
>So, either you're a glutton for punishment, or maybe this irritating
>little rodent is proving to be a minor thorn in the side of the RCP/LM
>and you're under orders to act as Rentokil.
Please don't go, Gerry. It's when we read gems like the above that we
realise it wouldn't be the same without you.
Just beware that LM doesn't mobilise its NWO-ZOG black helicopters to
really take that thorn out. If I was you I'd swicth off your machine
right now and position yourself by the window, so you can see them
coming.
Richard Caley
In article <352a1c9b...@news5.newscene.com>, Gerry the Gerbil (gtg) writes:
gtg> Anyway, you can demand my name until you're blue in the face, but
gtg> you'll never get it.
We are truely heart broken.
gtg> You can, of course, accuse me of cowardice,
I believe the charge was hypocrisy.
I'd be more likely to diagnose extreme embarassment.
Big Mac
On 7 Apr 1998 10:44:42 GMT, g...@ee.ed.ac.uk (Gary Dale) wrote:
>
>
>Vermin wrote:
>
>[blah, blah, blah]
>
>No, you are not prepared to engage in ideas: you 'assumed' a representation
>of LM's views on footie based on fabrication and speculation. That's
>not engagement with ideas; just bone-idle dismissiveness.
>
>
>So stop ranting and give us your name - without the tantrum.
Perhaps it's Gerry Squealy :)
Gary Dale
gg>Oh, and get yourself a decent news client, will you? Or learn how to
gg>reply properly - I never know which message you're replying to.
No need to: they are all the same *evasion*, straw-men and tantrums.
Gary Dale
gg>Anyway, you can demand my name until you're blue in the face,
And you can carry on your cranky rantings about 'secretive
agendas' and demand to know whether anyone and everyone is,
or has been, a member of the RCP until you are blue in the face.
And you probably will. Or are.
Just makes you look the clown.
Louis N Proyect
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998 creb...@antares.com.br wrote:
> Well, from what I can gather, LM's marxism bases itself on concept that the
> development of productive forces more or less automatically creates the
> climate necessary to the existence of a more tolerant and open society, and so
> of itself prepares the transition to socialism - that is, a cross of
> Bernstein's Marxism with Post-Modernism. I do not support it, but I do not
Carlos, do you actually ever look at their magazine or the Web archives?
There is not even a whisper of Marxist or socialist analysis in recent
issues. At least with Bernstein you got a profession in the belief that
capitalist monopolization would be transformed into socialism, given
sufficient political intervention from mass reformist parties. With these
idiots, there is nothing but diatribes against ecology, etc. The tip-off
on the direction they are going was the publication of an article by Ron
Arnold in a recent issue. This guy is a key operative in the American far
right. His partner at the Committee in Defense of Free Enterprise raised
millions of dollars for Reagan and Oliver North in the 80s. Any Marxist
publication that would even dream of publishing Ron Arnold has already
broken with Marxism.
Louis Proyect
Gerry the Gerbil
I asked you a direct and serious question, with a supplementary, in
the previous message. I'll repeat them:
>So, do I and others have a right to confidentiality on the Internet,
>or not? If we do, then why are you challenging it?
As a representative of the RCP/LM I think we should know the answer to
the first, at the very least.
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
Louis N Proyect
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Big Mac wrote:
> LM's fundamental position is that the barrier to the realisation of
> the human potential today is NOT the capital / wage-labour
> relationship. Human society is more and more refusing to approach
> that traditional Marxist barrier, prefering not to find out the limits
> to expansion by pushing capitalism forward, but instead reigning
> society back. It is the subjective consciousness of "natural" limits
> on human endeavour which prevents humanity realising progress. Once
> those subjective limits have been dealt with, the currently obscured
> objective limits of capital will become clear and challengable. But
> revolution is blocked while the anti-human outlook prevails.
What a fucking joke. Anybody with their head screwed on can witness the
unprecedented expansion of capitalism over the past 25 years into vast
areas that it has not been before. It has run roughshod over China and
Vietnam. It has smashed the USSR and the Eastern European countries into
smithereens. Wall St. investment banks, oil companies, fast food chains
are dividing up the former socialist bloc the way that European powers
divided up Africa a century ago. Except for Cuba, the entire world is
undergoing a collosal spasm of privatization and attacks on social
spending and safety nets. Dickens England is the norm not only for England
today, but Chile, Indonesia and Nigeria. The rich get richer and the poor
starve. And these fucking idiots claim that the capital/wage labor
contradiction ain't what it used to be.
Louis Proyect
Big Mac
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 11:14:55 -0400, Louis N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu>
wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Big Mac wrote:
>
>> LM's fundamental position is that the barrier to the realisation of
>> the human potential today is NOT the capital / wage-labour
>> relationship. Human society is more and more refusing to approach
>> that traditional Marxist barrier, prefering not to find out the limits
>> to expansion by pushing capitalism forward, but instead reigning
>> society back. It is the subjective consciousness of "natural" limits
>> on human endeavour which prevents humanity realising progress. Once
>> those subjective limits have been dealt with, the currently obscured
>> objective limits of capital will become clear and challengable. But
>> revolution is blocked while the anti-human outlook prevails.
>
>What a fucking joke. Anybody with their head screwed on can witness the
>unprecedented expansion of capitalism over the past 25 years into vast
>areas that it has not been before.
Actually, Louis, if the collapse of Stalinism has exposed anything,
it's the weakness and stagnation of capitalism in the West and its
consequent inability, as promised in 1989, to bring Western prosperity
to the East. And I won't even point out the glaring contradiction in
your position as expressed here, and your oft-repeated point that
imperialism is always an era of capitalist decline where there can be
no expansion of the productive forces. Consistency is presumably
another of those right-wing notions you are so keen to steer clear of.
Despite the picture you paint of a rampant, engertic capitalism
expanding into the East, the truth is that capitalist development
there has stagnated with only a few exceptions. Even Germany is
struggling to integrate East Germany - let alone the countries to the
East. I wonder if Louis has any grip at all on reality? If he really
thinks Western capitalists are investing heavily in the exploitable
East, then who the hell is pushing Western financial markets to record
levels with their stagnant capital???
Tell me Louis - what was the barrier to building those hydro-electric
dams in the third world? The inability of capital to make the
investment and construct the dams at a profit, or the subjective
belief amongst campaigners like yourself, and the like-minded in the
World Bank, that such development is bad for people and must be
restricted in the interests of the world's environment?
Big Mac
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 10:25:38 -0400, Louis N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu>
wrote:
>millions of dollars for Reagan and Oliver North in the 80s. Any Marxist
>publication that would even dream of publishing Ron Arnold has already
>broken with Marxism.
It's no wonder the likes of Proyect oppose free speech and use the
word "libertarian" as if they were swearing. What use is free speech
to a closed mind?
Gerry the Gerbil
On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 14:36:33 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
Gerbil) wrote:
>I asked you a direct and serious question, with a supplementary, in
>the previous message. I'll repeat them:
>
>>So, do I and others have a right to confidentiality on the Internet,
>>or not? If we do, then why are you challenging it?
Maybe I didn't phrase the above correctly, so let's try again:
Does LM support the right to confidentiality on the Internet? By
"confidentiality" I include the use of anonymous email and strong
encryption. A simple yes or no will do. TIA.
Keep on munchin'
Gerry
John Fisher
In article <3527c3ec...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac
<macdo...@ferengi.co.uk> writes
>Nope, the RCP is defunct. Seriously. It no longer exists. It is a
>dead party. That's it. Kaput. Wound up. Publication titles sold.
>No Leninist vanguard, no supporters/members, just a magazine and its
>contributors and readers. You can't join it. You can only buy it and
>read it.
Unconvinced. Leninist parties don't behave like that. The last one
I can think of which "disbanded" in this way was the Revolutionary
Socialist League, which "disbanded" and reappeared as the Militant
Tendency. Non-existent it wasn't.
Of course, it's possible that the RCP has indeed liquidated itself. I
can't prove it hasn't. Just that it seems like a somewhat unlikely way
to behave.
--
John Fisher jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk
Drummond is an independent site; its opinions are my own
Big Mac
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 01:00:44 +0100, John Fisher
<jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3527c3ec...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac
><macdo...@ferengi.co.uk> writes
>
>>Nope, the RCP is defunct. Seriously. It no longer exists. It is a
>>dead party. That's it. Kaput. Wound up. Publication titles sold.
>>No Leninist vanguard, no supporters/members, just a magazine and its
>>contributors and readers. You can't join it. You can only buy it and
>>read it.
>
>Unconvinced. Leninist parties don't behave like that.
If you cast your mind over the history of the Communist League and the
IWMA, you'll find that this is EXACTLY how revolutionary parties
behave.
Of course, if you're a sect that is still claiming a programme written
in 1938 is applicable, perhaps with some "updates", to 1998 - I'd
agree. That kind of "Leninist" party goes on until death or
retirement, unfortunately.
The RCP is defunct. It really is. There's even a thread on the LM
website with supporters fiercely arguing over the announcement. If
you were better informed as to the politics of the RCP, you wouldn't
be so surprised. The party was formed in 1981 to intervene in the
rising class struggle as the Tories dismantled corporatist Britain.
That intervention failed and the class struggle, for now, is
quiescent. Hence, there's no point to the RCP.
Big Mac
On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 16:24:18 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
Gerbil) wrote:
>On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 14:36:33 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
>Gerbil) wrote:
>
>>I asked you a direct and serious question, with a supplementary, in
>>the previous message. I'll repeat them:
Ooooh!! Please sir! Please sir! I know! I know! Can I answer
sir!!??? Pleeeeeeaaase!?!?!?! Quick, or I'll wet myself!
>>>So, do I and others have a right to confidentiality on the Internet,
>>>or not?
Yes you do.
>If we do, then why are you challenging it?
You have the right to free speech - that doesn't mean nobody has the
right to challenge what you say. That's the only way we can separate
the wheat from the gerbil food.
(Sorry Gary, I had to pick this one up. I hate seeing dumb animals
tormented unnecessarily <vbg>)
Louis N Proyect
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Louis N Proyect wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Big Mac wrote:
>
> > It's no wonder the likes of Proyect oppose free speech and use the
> > word "libertarian" as if they were swearing. What use is free speech
> > to a closed mind?
>
> Speaking of free speech, who expects LM to editorialize against food libel
> laws? This is the most serious threat to free speech in the United States
> today. A big egg wholesaler was putting in 3 day old eggs into cartons
> that stipulated that they were no more than 24 hours old. When somebody
~~~~~ (a correction)
> wrote an article exposing these bastards, they sued him under a food
> libel law. Meanwhile, these fucking idiots from Furedi's cult are more
> worried about bans on tobacco advertising. They should all get lung cancer
> and drop dead.
>
> Louis Proyect
>
>
>
Louis N Proyect
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Big Mac wrote:
> It's no wonder the likes of Proyect oppose free speech and use the
> word "libertarian" as if they were swearing. What use is free speech
> to a closed mind?
Speaking of free speech, who expects LM to editorialize against food libel
laws? This is the most serious threat to free speech in the United States
today. A big egg wholesaler was putting in 3 day old eggs into cartons
that stipulated that they were no more than 24 days old. When somebody
David Stevens
Gerry the Gerbil wrote:
>
> ... but I figure a stupid
> handle at least makes it plain that I'm writing anonymously.
Well, yes, there is that.
Of course, Gerbil Gerry tried to get uncharacteristically serious
with me me back on 2 March 1998, when I cited him as follows:
> ...
> There is a very good search engine, but I was unable to find the article
> referenced above, although I only did a cursory search. Perhaps someone
> with more than a tiny little rodent brain won't teach my grandmother
> how to suck eggs but I, Gerry the Gerbil, merely assume that Tyler
> is more ignorant than I am, so I write a short essay about it.
so I want to thank one of my checker partners for sending
the pilot issue (Oct/Nov 1997 20p) of _Resistance_, a news
sheet of the Gerbil's own much-beloved Anarchist Communist
Federation (84b Whitechapel High Street, London E1 7QX).
_Resistance_ provides the following citations, each guaranteed
to be as credible as our "class-struggle rodent" himself:
"May Resistance rise ever-higher through the clouds
of oppression towards the sunlight of liberty.
Unlike my balloons."
-- RICHARD BRANSON
"Nice to see a paper that knows all bosses are a
waste of space and time."
-- STEPHEN HAWKING
"New times, new paper. New approach, to old problems.
We must modernise by turning the clock back _but_ using
one with a digital display. May I also say that I
welcome the healthy diversity of views that the
appearance of 'Resistance' signifies. Difference is fine,
just as long as it makes no difference to me."
-- TONY BLAIR
I defend the Gerbil's right of pseudonymity, no matter
how much I continue to make fun of him.
The only problem is: if he ever makes an intelligent
remark, we will all wonder whether it is from the "real"
Gerry the Gerbil or just someone else spoofing us.
- David Stevens
Gary Dale
In <352a526a...@news5.newscene.com> munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the Gerbil) writes:
>On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 14:36:33 GMT, munc...@sunflower.seeds (Gerry the
>Gerbil) wrote:
>>I asked you a direct and serious question, with a supplementary, in
>>the previous message. I'll repeat them:
>>>So, do I and others have a right to confidentiality on the Internet,
>>>or not? If we do, then why are you challenging it?
>Maybe I didn't phrase the above correctly, so let's try again:
You mean "maybe" this makes me look an inconsistent hypocrite.
>Does LM support the right to confidentiality on the Internet? By
>"confidentiality" I include the use of anonymous email and strong
>encryption. A simple yes or no will do. TIA.
How the fuck would I know? You are the expert, you know who
is behind LM, their secret agendas and front organisations.
You tell me.
Speaking for myself, as I always do, I have no problem with
anonymous email or strong encryption, or the right to privacy
of the free-masons when grilled by a parliamentary committee.
What I have a problem with is your McCarthyite smears
of others whilst cravenly hiding behind anonymity yourself.
You can either (a) reveal your true name, or (b) scrap your
infantile witch-hunt, or (c) carry on as before making a
complete arse of yourself by trying to have it both ways.
There is an alternative. Get a life.
Big Mac
On Tue, 07 Apr 1998 16:28:16 -0700, David Stevens
<phyls...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Nice to see a paper that knows all bosses are a
>waste of space and time."
> -- STEPHEN HAWKING
You've got to hand it to those anarchists, though. Well, sometimes.
They do know how to produce a really funny paper. Everyone (at least
in the UK) remembers the old "Class War", which featured the regular
column "Hospitalised Coppers" plus photo - very popular with the
readers. They used to have a theoretical journal called "The Heavy
Stuff", I think. And while trotting off to Henley regatta to spit at
the rich may not strike everyone as worthwhile political activity, at
least the kids enjoy it and it's a day out. But the best anarchist
paper I ever read - do you have a copy, Gerry? - was simply entitled
"Attack", with the sub-heading "Attack Attack Attack". It included
tips such as "don't forget that old people can riot as well - get them
making petrol bombs if they are too fragile for the front line" and an
interesting Foucault-like line on mental illness.
Big Mac
>present Brazilian government, specially after the recent megafire (or
>mega-arson)in the Northern tip of Brazil has made international headlines
I've only seen a couple of short news items about the fires in the
north, which have basically reported nothing except that the forest is
on fire, it has been for weeks, and quite a bit the state is burnt
down.
What's the background to these fires, Carlos? Presumably they were
started by farmers clearing land for cultivation? Doesn't this kind
of thing happen pretty much every year? How seriously is it being
taken in Brazil (not just by eco-activists but by the populous)?
(ps. Didn't realise that FHC was one of the original dependency
theorists :)
David Webb
As a former supporter of the RCP, I can allow myself to answer the
questions raised about RCP/LM front organisations. As you pointed out the
Irish Freedom Movement and Workers Against Racism are moribund, but many
others have been set up, but usually abandoned when no interest is shown.
Parents Against the Charter was something set up by LM-ers against some
education thing or other. Families Need Freedom was set up to campaign
against children's rights (actually state rights). Feminists for Justice to
campaign against altering rape trial regulations. You mentioned Against
Nature, Libero and the Campaign for Internet Freedom. The latter is
*definitely* an LM front. And the first two 99% certainly are. It is
nonsense of Scottish Twat Gary Dale to say LM-ers only participated in a
personal capacity. Against Nature would have been a great project that
several members would be involved in. Many other things have been tried.
The Cafe Cyberia/Easynet company was originally set up by/involving Keith
Teare, an LM-er, and it is curious to note on my visits to the cafe how
many LM-ers were working for the organisation, although I do not know if
Teare is still involved. Andrew Calcutt was working on something or other
there, Helen Searls was involved in Channel Cyberia, a 24-hour Internet
site designed to have changing content to be like the news on the telly. I
know because I bumped into her in the cafe and, as at the time I did not
know how to do frames in HTML, she was able to tell me how she designed the
homepage. Channel Cyberia was a wierd site, with articles by Mick Hume on
football (against the nationalism in football) and discussion sections on
Kenan Malik's book, the Meaning of Racism. By the way, I do not see
anything sinister in setting things up and trying to do things, but if they
are really arguing social transformation is not possible today, I do not
see why I shouldn't detail what they have been up to. LM-ers tend to all do
the same thing at once. Something might be tried, and then dropped with no
explanation as to why it is not continuing. They set up CAM - Campaign
Against Militarism - once, but that fizzled out, and made no appearance
during British aggression recently against Iraq. They launched a
publication called Fightback to argue that the time had come for militancy
in industrial struggle. I think that made it to three issues, which are
somewhere on the LM Online site, if you carefully explore every link you
will find it. But that fizzled out too. I don't see any reason why
Dale/Hibbert/Flude should pretend all this is untrue. If you are interested
in the debate on the winding up of the RCP, which I intiated, please post
comments on their site. Go to www.informinc.co.uk , press on the Discuss
button on the left, choose Open Forum, and find thread The Winding Up of
the RCP.
isol...@hotmail.com
In article <352b3e18...@news.xara.com>,
In the Netherlands, there used to be an anarchist paper "Funest" ("fatal",
"lethal") which has recently ceased to exist, unfortunately. They used to have
great attacks on the Greens, declaring among others that they would baseball-
club any Green venturing near their cars on Earth Night. Their line on the
Unabomber was basically that it was unfortunate that the guy was crazy so that
he couldn't be executed. Their line on fascism was that if there are no
fascists, there is no fascism, thus if all fascists are killed, fascism has
ceased to exist thus anti-fascists should kill fascists.
They one time reprinted an article from "Class War" against censorship on
pornography which was very good.
Arthur
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
creb...@antares.com.br
In article <352b6835...@news.xara.com>,
To Big Mac:
First, of course, the fact that it was late winter and the weather dry
(Roraima is to the N.of the Equatorial line and there are vast stretches of
natural savannahs). But then there were farmers clearing the land, but also
arsonists wanting to receive insurance for burnt overvalued crops, hunters
wanting to smoke wildlife out of the woods, gold-prospectors want to burnt the
Yanomami out of their reservation- in short, all kinds of _private_ interest
in the wake of some opportunity of a windfall. It was, of course, not taken
very seriously by the population at large - Roraima being exactly midways
between Rio de Janeiro and Miami. But it was taken very seriously that FHC
didn't go there, in order perhaps to spare his political supporters in the
state some embarassment. You see that capitalism is alive and well in the most
remote part of the Amazonia - perhaps _too_ well.
Carlos Rebello
> (ps. Didn't realise that FHC was one of the original dependency
> theorists :)
>
>
Claude de Paris
Big Mac wrote in message <352a4f72...@news.xara.com>...
>On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 11:14:55 -0400, Louis N Proyect <ln...@columbia.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Big Mac wrote:
>>
>>> LM's fundamental position is that the barrier to the realisation of
>>> the human potential today is NOT the capital / wage-labour
>>> relationship.
Any comments from David Stevens and Ken McLeod on this revelation from their
favourite cult?
>What a fucking joke. Anybody with their head screwed on can witness the
>>unprecedented expansion of capitalism over the past 25 years into vast
>>areas that it has not been before.
>
>Actually, Louis, if the collapse of Stalinism has exposed anything,
>it's the weakness and stagnation of capitalism in the West and its
>consequent inability, as promised in 1989, to bring Western prosperity
>to the East.
You, Big Mac, are so blinded by the academic gobbldegook churned out by your
professor/cult leader/gurus. The world is more complex than you think.
Capitalism has truimphed in Eastern Europe because economically and
militarily it was able to place such strain on these economies that they
collapsed. But, due to the world-wide shortage of Capital, it was unable to
follow through by any form of investment in these countries. Furthermore it
is debateable that imperialism ever wanted to do any large scale investment
in these countries. The IMF and World Banks plans for Russia, for example,
are to turn it into a depenedent 3rd world country that can be effectively
exploited for its natural resources. It has not particular interest in
propping up its economy, investing heavily in its infrastructure or its
people. But then you should cheer this project, as you do their similar
projects in the rest of the third world.
>Despite the picture you paint of a rampant, engertic capitalism
>expanding into the East, the truth is that capitalist development
>there has stagnated with only a few exceptions. Even Germany is
>struggling to integrate East Germany - let alone the countries to the
>East. I wonder if Louis has any grip at all on reality? If he really
>thinks Western capitalists are investing heavily in the exploitable
>East, then who the hell is pushing Western financial markets to record
>levels with their stagnant capital???
The Furedi cult's economic analysis is somewhat lacking. The problem for
capital has not been 'stagnant capital' for a long time. The problem is a
dire shortage of capital. Hence its inability to invest in the 3rd world or
Eastern Europe. American economy is riding on a wave of massive capital
inflows from Japan. The record levels of the American stock market, by the
way, have nothing to do with successful investments, rise in dividends or a
turn around in profitability of American capitalism. Which is why bourgeois
economists are so worried about the bull market. It could come crashing down
under any serious pressure.
>Tell me Louis - what was the barrier to building those hydro-electric
>dams in the third world? The inability of capital to make the
>investment and construct the dams at a profit, or the subjective
>belief amongst campaigners like yourself, and the like-minded in the
>World Bank, that such development is bad for people and must be
>restricted in the interests of the world's environment?
Are you completely deranged? Do you really think the world bank is worried
by environmental issues. Do you really consider it a progressive
organization? The politics of the RCP get more and more bizarre by the
minute...
Claude
Claude de Paris
Big Mac wrote in message <352a58e7...@news.xara.com>...
>The party was formed in 1981 to intervene in the
>rising class struggle as the Tories dismantled corporatist Britain.
>That intervention failed
An admission at last!
>and the class struggle, for now, is
>quiescent. Hence, there's no point to the RCP.
How quaint. For the middle class resolutionary socialists of the RCP the
class struggle has gone away. Unfortunately for the working class it hasn't.
Any Marxist worth her salt would be organizing, educating and agitating. But
then the RCP never was a Marxist organization. It was always a middle class
adventure, using ultra left rhetoric to justify extremely right wing
positions. Its 'supporters' continue in that fine tradition in their new
chosen milleiu: the press.
Good riddance to a reactionary scab organization, I say.
Claude
Claude de Paris
Gary Dale wrote in message <6gadnk$t...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>...
>Every contributer to LM is 'an individual speaking and writing for
>him/herself'. Just as every contributor to Against Nature and
>the producers were same. (The cranks here were the environmentalists,
>who complained because they couldn't trust themselves to open their
>mouths before the nations TV without rendering themselves utter
>fools).
Well why is it then that the ITC has upheld their complaints and found that
the program editors edited the interviews to change what these people said?
Why is Channel 4 putting out televised apologies?
Maybe there is a conspiracy between the Friends of the Earth and the ITC to
suppress the views of the right wing on environmentalism?
You guys are a sick joke
Claude
Claude de Paris
Gerry the Gerbil wrote in message <35290e8d...@news5.newscene.com>...
Gary dale wrote'
>>What is your real name?
>>
>>We should be told.
>
>Why? I don't see you demanding to know Mister Lardy Pants' real name,
>even though he's far busier on these NGs than me. Still, he does
>support LM positions, eh? Or maybe you know him already, hmmm?
>
>Keep on munchin'
Also enough RCPers come on here with false names: Mike de Marseilles (a
cheap copy of my pen name by the way) and Big Mac to name just 2.
>Gerry
David Stevens
Louis N Proyect wrote:
> ...
> Speaking of free speech, who expects LM to editorialize against food libel
> laws? This is the most serious threat to free speech in the United States
> today.
Um ... might LM be more _directly_ concerned with the
most serious threats to free speech in the UK today?
Might libel laws be libel laws, and might LM be ag'in' 'em?
Speaking of hyperbole, who expects Proyect to be accurate
or honest in his political characterizations?
LM consistently fights the British libel laws, which make the
"food libel" stuff a cakewalk by comparison. Maryland courts
have even ruled that the British libel laws are "repugnant" to
American sense of liberty, and LM is fighting for its life in
a protracted libel suit against it by media giant ITN ... yet
our resident one-time wheatpaster doesn't think LM offers
sufficient "editorializing" on behalf of Oprah Winfrey.
OTOH, his comments to Carlos Rebello show that Proyect
doesn't even read LM, so I suppose that their perceived
failure, in Louis' eyes, won't lose them a subscriber.
> libel law. Meanwhile, these fucking idiots from Furedi's cult are more
> worried about bans on tobacco advertising. They should all get lung cancer
> and drop dead.
_Everybody_ should get lung cancer and drop dead.
Look at the stats: a death from lung cancer is typically more
quickly attained, and therefore MUCH less expensive socially,
than the average of aggregate deaths due to all other causes.
And to "drop dead" is in fact a quite reasonable alternative
to years of lingering illness with a lower quality of life.
A degenerative ailment such as Alzheimer's can break the hearts
of patient and family alike. Like Lucien Lenoire, I would prefer
for my body not to live if my intellect could not survive.
If, in my anecdotage, I should come to have a synapse rate
as low as that of Louis Proyect, I'd commit suicide (provided
I had enough capacity left to recognize my loss of capacity).
I'd expect comrades to understand it would be a medical issue,
not a political or philosophical one.
- David Stevens
Claude de Paris
David Stevens wrote in message <6gmkih$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Louis N Proyect wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Speaking of free speech, who expects LM to editorialize against food
libel
>> laws? This is the most serious threat to free speech in the United States
>> today.
Like the right of fascists to speak in public? And the right of the RCP to
share a platform with them? What do you think of these RCP policies,
Stevens?
> LM consistently fights the British libel laws, which make the
>"food libel" stuff a cakewalk by comparison. Maryland courts
>have even ruled that the British libel laws are "repugnant" to
>American sense of liberty, and LM is fighting for its life in
>a protracted libel suit against it by media giant ITN ... yet
>our resident one-time wheatpaster doesn't think LM offers
>sufficient "editorializing" on behalf of Oprah Winfrey.
LM is actually being forced to fight because IT is being sued by ITN. Hardly
a fight the cowardly wankers at LM picked on their own. In fact, in their
panic they 'wound up' their party, sold off their magazine and even dropped
the 'arxist' from Marxist. What heroic class fighters be they!!
> OTOH, his comments to Carlos Rebello show that Proyect
>doesn't even read LM, so I suppose that their perceived
>failure, in Louis' eyes, won't lose them a subscriber.
Well I am someone who not only read their garbage from the days they
published the next step (trendy non-capitalisation in the original) and hung
out with many of the wankers for many years. So I know them a bit better
than you Stevens. Their 'perceived' failure is actually real. In fact, they
have now admitted as much on this newsgroup. The class struggle is over. No
need for a party. Hence 'we wound it up'.
>> libel law. Meanwhile, these fucking idiots from Furedi's cult are more
>> worried about bans on tobacco advertising. They should all get lung
cancer
>> and drop dead.
And those that don't die from that should contract AIDS or mad cow disease.
It would be a fitting end to their (short lived) middle class rebellion.
Claude
Gary Dale
ds>A degenerative ailment such as Alzheimer's can break the hearts
ds>of patient and family alike.
Well nature knows best, as St. Loser might have it.
ds>Like Lucien Lenoire, I would prefer
ds>for my body not to live if my intellect could not survive.
ds> If, in my anecdotage, I should come to have a synapse rate
ds>as low as that of Louis Proyect, I'd commit suicide (provided
ds>I had enough capacity left to recognize my loss of capacity).
Given the evident degeneration in faculties, I think someone
should send St. Loser a pearl-handled revolver so he can
'do the decent thing'. It really would be best all round.
Louis N Proyect
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, David Stevens wrote:
> Um ... might LM be more _directly_ concerned with the
> most serious threats to free speech in the UK today?
>
You fucking idiot, the American laws are based on the original McDonalds
suit against two activists in England, called "McLibel". LM is more
concerned about the rights of McDonald to sell unhealthy food than the
rights of radicals to protest them.
Louis Proyect
David Stevens
Gary Dale wrote:
> ...
>
> Given the evident degeneration in faculties, I think someone
> should send St. Loser a pearl-handled revolver so he can
> 'do the decent thing'. It really would be best all round.
Warning: This illustration is almost three feet tall,
just like Comrade St. Loser himself:
http://home.att.net/~phylstevens/RIGHT.GIF
- David Stevens
"VM/370 system programmers do it
virtually all the time."
Big Mac
>
>Gary Dale wrote in message <6gadnk$t...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>...
>
>>Every contributer to LM is 'an individual speaking and writing for
>>him/herself'. Just as every contributor to Against Nature and
>>the producers were same. (The cranks here were the environmentalists,
>>who complained because they couldn't trust themselves to open their
>>mouths before the nations TV without rendering themselves utter
>>fools).
>
>Well why is it then that the ITC has upheld their complaints and found that
>the program editors edited the interviews to change what these people said?
>Why is Channel 4 putting out televised apologies?
The power of the Green establishment, I expect. Anyone who saw the
programmes could never believe that the Greens were misrepresented.
They were given some rope and they hanged themselves. And how typical
that they resorted to calls for the programmes to be banned, and now
for the official TV censors to intervene and rap knuckles, instead of
having the arguments out in open debate.
Richard Caley
In article <35338bf8...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac (bm) writes:
bm> The power of the Green establishment, I expect.
Yeah, right.
bm> Anyone who saw the programmes could never believe that the Greens
bm> were misrepresented.
Anyone with any sense would assume they were.
It's like watching a TV programme aboutthe Tory party made by the
Labour party, might be fun but no sane person is going to believe a
word of it.
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Big Mac
On 14 Apr 1998 17:25:30 +0100, Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>In article <35338bf8...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac (bm) writes:
>
>bm> The power of the Green establishment, I expect.
>
>Yeah, right.
>
>bm> Anyone who saw the programmes could never believe that the Greens
>bm> were misrepresented.
>
>Anyone with any sense would assume they were.
>
>It's like watching a TV programme aboutthe Tory party made by the
>Labour party, might be fun but no sane person is going to believe a
>word of it.
Gosh Richard, anyone would think you actually watched those
programmes. How about an example of how the Greens were
misrepresented?
Ken MacLeod
In article <eGU0qR9Y9GA.204@uppubnews03>, Claude de Paris
<Clau...@juno.com> writes
>>>On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Big Mac wrote:
>>>
>>>> LM's fundamental position is that the barrier to the realisation of
>>>> the human potential today is NOT the capital / wage-labour
>>>> relationship.
>
>Any comments from David Stevens and Ken McLeod on this revelation from their
>favourite cult?
>
An interesting idea, but not well supported.
--
Ken MacLeod 'Einstein and people like Einstein said that the world was
flat; Einstein and people like Einstein said that Man
would never travel faster than the speed of sound.'
- T. Lobsang Rampa
Mike de Marseilles
The silly cousin of mine, Claude de Paris, ecrive:
> Also enough RCPers come on here with false names: Mike de Marseilles (a
> cheap copy of my pen name by the way) and Big Mac to name just 2.
Mais, non. I was in the same group as my silly cousin Claude before
that fateful institutionalisation which removed Claudie from reality.
Cousin Claudie and moi were both in le IMG in the Bretagne, home once
also of Ken MacLeod. I have never been in le RCP nor
l'OFKARCPNKAJPGLtd, to use a witticism of the always tres amusant David
Stevens.
As for 'cheap copy', puh! I say, and puh again. For my poor cousin it
is all too much; the IMG is no more, but it really has done the big
explode into nothing. So Claude is bitter in the extreme, that the end
of le RCP is not really THE END at all, but the beginning of a new cycle
in which they seem to be more influential than ever.
Ah Claude, what a cruel world it is, non? And whereas both Ken and
myself and learned a thing or two since then, Claude is pedalling the
same old crap that sent the IMG into oblivion.
That a lot more people are familiar with the work of Frank Furedi than
John Ross (John who?) must be a source of great anger to my poor cousin,
helping to explain the level of bile that comes puring out whenever he
mentions those fateful three letters, R-C-P. But if you think he is
amusing on apst, you should see him in person. He goes into a kind of
fit, his face reddens, he shakes, whenever he tries to get those three
little letters out of his mouth.
Ah, Claude, how is the medication these days? Anyway, don't let us keep
you up.
Bon soir,
Mike
Gary Dale
cdp>Well why is it then that the ITC has upheld their complaints and found that
The ITC? It is the Messiah! It *is* the Messiah!!
cdp>the program editors edited the interviews to change what these people said?
cdp>Why is Channel 4 putting out televised apologies?
A broadcast apology?! Look! Look!! It's a sign! It's a SIGN!
Is it any surprise that a ground-breaking, provacative and sometimes
polemical program runs into trouble from this appointed clique?
The most likely reason the greens complained is because their absurd
arguments were exposed. But FYI, the following was sent to
the spoons-collective list by James Heartfield of LM magazine:
----
"Bob makes the right point about the 'polite' censorship practiced by
the apparatchiks of the ITC against Channel 4's ground-breaking
Against Nature documentary.
Any broadcast that fails to get a ruling aginst it from this civil service
appointed clique of the great and the good is failing to do its job.
However, Mark misrepresents the ruling. Despite the furious lobbying
from the wealthy Friends of the Earth and millionaire Edward Goldsmith
of the Ecologist, the ITC cleared the programme of any charge of
misrepresenting the facts, and cleared them of misrepresenting the
arguments of enviromentalists.
The only charge they upheld was one of misleading contributors from the
green establishment about the nature of the programme. It is
characteristic of the power that these groups have amongst the
establishment now, that it is assumed that the media must bend over
backwards when investigating them. No such favours are granted on
British television to any working class representatives.
That said, everything the environmentalist spokesmen had to say they
said willingly, and their complaint that they were misrepresented
only arises from their grave embarrassment at the sheer ridiculousness
of their own comments. I guess it is the job of a TV censor to save
environmentalists from their own stupidity, lest mere mortal viewers get
to see the truth. What, one asks, do they have to hide?
As a postscript, FoE spokesman putting the spin on the story for the
papers was one Ian Willmore, the right-wing Labour councillor who
was put by Tony Blair's clique into the far-left Haringey Council
to undermine Britain's first black council leader and radical Bernie
Grant. Willmore led the coup to get rid of the left from Haringey in the
most underhand and vicious way. He is an appropriate spokesmen for
the 'friends of the earth', because he is no friend of the working class."
--
James Heartfield"
-----quote ends
Richard Caley
In article <6h1qvv$r...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>, Gary Dale (gd) writes:
cdp> Why is Channel 4 putting out televised apologies?
gd> A broadcast apology?! Look! Look!! It's a sign! It's a SIGN!
I see, so we are to implicitly believe you when you say people were
not misrepresented, but if somoene else looks and says they were, it's
to be ignored?
gd> Is it any surprise that a ground-breaking, provacative and sometimes
gd> polemical program runs into trouble from this appointed clique?
Is it any suprise that a polemical piece gets treated as a polemical
piece not as a representation of the people whose views it is setting
out to oppose?
Richard Caley
In article <3533a605...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac (bm) writes:
bm> Gosh Richard, anyone would think you actually watched those
bm> programmes.
I didn't.
bm> How about an example of how the Greens were misrepresented?
I didn't claim they were. I claimed that people would naturally assume
they were. That's a pretty good reason for not watching the programme
to me.
If I wanted to know what the greens opinions were I'd want to watch a
programme made by them.
Louis N Proyect
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Mike de Marseilles wrote:
> That a lot more people are familiar with the work of Frank Furedi than
> John Ross (John who?) must be a source of great anger to my poor cousin,
> helping to explain the level of bile that comes puring out whenever he
> mentions those fateful three letters, R-C-P. But if you think he is
Yeah, and there are a lot more people familiar with the work of Noam
Chomsky or Alex Cockburn or Tariq Ali or Michael Moore or David Harvey or
Ellen Meiksins Wood or Doug Henwood than they are with the work of Frank
Furedi. I myself never heard of Frank Furedi until the dumb shit James
Heartfield showed up on the Spoons mailing-lists promoting the genocide of
the Yanomami, professional boxing, tobacco and nuclear power plants.
What's up with that, I asked myself. So I investigated Heartfield's rag,
the LM, and found out who the players were. If Heartfield and the rest of
you assholes had not shown up on the Internet, I never would have paid you
any attention. I remember stopping at the bookstore near Columbia
University in years past, browsing through the latest periodicals. I could
never figure out what LM was trying to say, and never bought a copy. It
looked like Time Magazine and wrote about nothing except "life style"
matters. Why waste your money on something like that? It was only when I
discovered that you were a bunch of scabbing, libertarian, middle-class
dogs developing ties to the Cato Institute, the Unification Church-spawned
thinktanks and the "wise use" movement, that I started paying closer
attention.
People are familiar with Furedi in the same way that they became familiar
with Lyndon Larouche, as the leader of a right-wing cult that uses leftist
verbiage. It is not fame, it is notoriety. You have gotten proper exposure
on the Internet and just about everybody except the lunatic David Stevens
understands what a bunch of right-wing jerks you are. This is progress.
Louis Proyect
Big Mac
On 15 Apr 1998 14:41:49 +0100, Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>In article <3533a605...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac (bm) writes:
>
>bm> Gosh Richard, anyone would think you actually watched those
>bm> programmes.
>
>I didn't.
Yes, I had worked that out from your ill-informed comments already.
>bm> How about an example of how the Greens were misrepresented?
>
>I didn't claim they were. I claimed that people would naturally assume
>they were. That's a pretty good reason for not watching the programme
>to me.
So because the programmes were described as a critique of the Greens,
you assumed that it would misrepresent them - and decide not to watch
it?
>If I wanted to know what the greens opinions were I'd want to watch a
>programme made by them.
The programme was a critique of the Green view. I can hear and read
the mainstream Green view through innumerable media already.
Big Mac
On 15 Apr 1998 14:44:50 +0100, Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
If I quote an author in a literary piece to criticise him, do I
necessarily misrepresent him? You seem to be arguing that any
criticism of someone's views is invalid unless it is presumably
self-criticism.
The Green spokesmen were asked straight-forward questions like "do you
think there are too many people in the world today?" They gave
straight-forward, "common sense" answers that they were surprised to
see withering under the analytical glare of the LM analysis. Then
they went running to their Big Brother to make it better.
Big Mac
On Wed, 15 Apr 1998 09:47:25 -0400, Louis N Proyect
<ln...@columbia.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Apr 1998, Mike de Marseilles wrote:
>
>> That a lot more people are familiar with the work of Frank Furedi than
>> John Ross (John who?) must be a source of great anger to my poor cousin,
>> helping to explain the level of bile that comes puring out whenever he
>> mentions those fateful three letters, R-C-P. But if you think he is
>
>Yeah, and there are a lot more people familiar with the work of Noam
>Chomsky or Alex Cockburn or Tariq Ali or Michael Moore or David Harvey or
>Ellen Meiksins Wood or Doug Henwood than they are with the work of Frank
>Furedi.
With perhaps the exception of Doug Henwood, whose book is required
reading amongst the LM crowd, all those you mention are on the way
down.
Furedi's on his way up.
Richard Caley
In article <3534bb15...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac (bm) writes:
bm> So because the programmes were described as a critique of the Greens,
bm> you assumed that it would misrepresent them - and decide not to watch
bm> it?
To be more precise, because the programmes were reviewed as a critique
of the greens (I didn't know they were going to be on so I wouldn't
have seen the first), I presumed they were going to be representing a
particualr POV which I don't find very interesting (anyone can poke
holes in green arguments because so many of them are twaddle, that
doesn't mean there are no solid green arguments).
So far as I can see, some people wandered out of their little clique
where they are used to talking to themselves with no significant
criticism, decided to become part of the media establishment they
criticised so much, and now are upset because they are treated in the
same way people treat the rest of the media establishment -- no one
believes them and they get citicised if they don't follow the fairly
minimal forms of pretended `objectivity'.
If they didn't want to play by these rules, they didn't have to
pretend to.
I look forward to the libel case I presume the programme makers are
going to put together aginst the ITC for saying they edited the
greens' statments.
Big Mac
On 15 Apr 1998 15:04:43 +0100, Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>In article <3534bb15...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac (bm) writes:
>
>bm> So because the programmes were described as a critique of the Greens,
>bm> you assumed that it would misrepresent them - and decide not to watch
>bm> it?
>
>To be more precise, because the programmes were reviewed as a critique
>of the greens (I didn't know they were going to be on so I wouldn't
>have seen the first), I presumed they were going to be representing a
>particualr POV which I don't find very interesting (anyone can poke
>holes in green arguments because so many of them are twaddle, that
>doesn't mean there are no solid green arguments).
Er, which programmes do you reckon _don't_ express a "particular point
of view", Richard? And if critiques of the Greens are ten-a-penny,
how come the Greens were so up in arms over being criticised by this
one particular programme - and why is Green thinking now the
mainstream?
>So far as I can see, some people wandered out of their little clique
>where they are used to talking to themselves with no significant
>criticism, decided to become part of the media establishment they
>criticised so much, and now are upset because they are treated in the
>same way people treat the rest of the media establishment -- no one
>believes them and they get citicised if they don't follow the fairly
>minimal forms of pretended `objectivity'.
Who is "upset"? James Heartfield reckons that if you haven't been
slapped down by the censors you just ain't kicking hard enough at the
pricks. It's a back-handed compliment, old boy.
>If they didn't want to play by these rules, they didn't have to
>pretend to.
The "rules" being that if you say something to offend the status quo
you can expect a bureaucrat to intervene and tell you off. The whole
point, Richard, is to change the "rules."
>I look forward to the libel case I presume the programme makers are
>going to put together aginst the ITC for saying they edited the
>greens' statments.
LM prefers these things to be debated in the open - which is exatcly
what is happening here. Where are all the Greens who are prepared to
defend their positions? Hiding behind a government ban/reprimand,
perhaps?
Gary Dale
St.Loser>I could never figure out what LM was trying to say,
Obviously from your cranky rantings which have become such
a joke.
Ian Geldard
>never figure out what LM was trying to say, and never bought a copy. It
>looked like Time Magazine and wrote about nothing except "life style"
>matters. Why waste your money on something like that? It was only when I
>discovered that you were a bunch of scabbing, libertarian, middle-class
>dogs developing ties to the Cato Institute ...
Excellent. I must start reading LM more often ;-)
--
Ian Geldard <L...@capital.demon.co.uk>, Netmaster
The Libertarian Alliance <http://www.digiweb.com/igeldard/LA/>
25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street
London SW1P 4NN, England
ICQ 8091240
Richard Caley
In article <3534bbd4...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac (bm) writes:
bm> If I quote an author in a literary piece to criticise him, do I
bm> necessarily misrepresent him?
Not necessarily. OTOH, your criticism wouldn't be taken as a
representation of his views or his work.
bm> You seem to be arguing that any criticism of someone's views is
bm> invalid unless it is presumably self-criticism.
No, I'm saying that a critique of someone's ideas represents the ideas
of the critic, not those of the criticised. Pretty obvious I would
have thought.
OTOH TV documentary has certain conventions of pretended objectivity
which are different from criticism. Documentory _is_ assumed to more
or less represent the views of the people interviewed. Getting
criticised for presenting as documentory what is actually critique
seems perfectly resaonble to me.
Of course, I don't know to what extent the programmes did
missrepresent the interviewees. I presume you haven't seen the
unedited interviews either.
Richard Caley
In article <3534bf37...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac (bm) writes:
bm> Er, which programmes do you reckon _don't_ express a "particular point
bm> of view", Richard?
None. However there are lots which present more interesting ones than
`we think some greens say silly things and we have edited together a
few'.
bm> And if critiques of the Greens are ten-a-penny, how come the
bm> Greens were so up in arms over being criticised by this one
bm> particular programme
They seem to be up in arms all the time.
bm> and why is Green thinking now the mainstream?
It isn't. when did a mainstream politician last say we shoudl start
shrinking the economy etc?
>> If they didn't want to play by these rules, they didn't have to
>> pretend to.
bm> The "rules" being that if you say something to offend the status quo
bm> you can expect a bureaucrat to intervene and tell you off.
No, the rules being you have to pretend to be objective if you want to
label what you are doing `documentary'.
bm> The whole point, Richard, is to change the "rules."
Then set up your own TV station. If C4 gives you free time, you have
to play by C4's rules. C4's rules include having the ITC look at
things.
>> I look forward to the libel case I presume the programme makers are
>> going to put together aginst the ITC for saying they edited the
>> greens' statments.
bm> LM prefers these things to be debated in the open - which is exatcly
bm> what is happening here.
Sounds like `we have no case' to me.
Just think of all that nice publicity and pressure to change the rules
when you win this case. Should be easy, show the original interviews
and the broadcast ones and show there was no misrepresentation as
claimed. ITC becomes discredited, the programme gets lots of good
publicity and gets rebroadcast wall to wall.
bm> Hiding behind a government ban/reprimand, perhaps?
Why try and claim it is a ban. The programme makers didn't even have
to say sorry.
become part of the establishment and you get treated accordingly.
Big Mac
On 15 Apr 1998 16:12:09 +0100, Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>In article <3534bf37...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac (bm) writes:
>
>bm> Er, which programmes do you reckon _don't_ express a "particular point
>bm> of view", Richard?
>
>None. However there are lots which present more interesting ones than
>`we think some greens say silly things and we have edited together a
>few'.
LM doesn't think they say "silly" things. LM is greatly concerned
that they appear to say "common sense" things because hardly anyone is
challenging them. The "silly" we can safely ignore.
>bm> And if critiques of the Greens are ten-a-penny, how come the
>bm> Greens were so up in arms over being criticised by this one
>bm> particular programme
>
>They seem to be up in arms all the time.
I wish. Can you name me another TV programme that has caused them
such offence?
>bm> and why is Green thinking now the mainstream?
>
>It isn't. when did a mainstream politician last say we shoudl start
>shrinking the economy etc?
When the East Asian crisis hit and it was blamed on the economic
growth in those countries? When Gordon Brown slapped heavy increases
on road tax and petrol because cars pollute and the freedom to travel
by car must be restricted? When John Selwyn Gummer went to Kyoto and
denounced the USA as "immoral" because it refused to follow a Green
agenda? Lots and lots more examples where these ones came from,
Richard. It's a shame you didn't watch the programme!
>>> If they didn't want to play by these rules, they didn't have to
>>> pretend to.
>
>bm> The "rules" being that if you say something to offend the status quo
>bm> you can expect a bureaucrat to intervene and tell you off.
>
>No, the rules being you have to pretend to be objective if you want to
>label what you are doing `documentary'.
How was the programme unobjective? If it had refused to interview the
Greens, instead giving its own opinions on what they believe, that
might have violated the fair treatment you expect from a "documentary
maker" - if those beliefs were actually misrepresented. But the
programme actually interviewed the Greens and allowed them to put
their own point of view across - as the ITC has acknowledged. Nobody
was misrepresented.
>bm> The whole point, Richard, is to change the "rules."
>
>Then set up your own TV station. If C4 gives you free time, you have
>to play by C4's rules. C4's rules include having the ITC look at
>things.
Great point, Richard, and one that if pursued would be bound to widen
and deepen the debate. I'm surprised you haven't followed this logic
through and suggested that LM set up its own its own country, if not
its own planet.
>>> I look forward to the libel case I presume the programme makers are
>>> going to put together aginst the ITC for saying they edited the
>>> greens' statments.
>
>bm> LM prefers these things to be debated in the open - which is exatcly
>bm> what is happening here.
>
>Sounds like `we have no case' to me.
>
>Just think of all that nice publicity and pressure to change the rules
>when you win this case. Should be easy, show the original interviews
>and the broadcast ones and show there was no misrepresentation as
>claimed. ITC becomes discredited, the programme gets lots of good
>publicity and gets rebroadcast wall to wall.
I can't quite see how turning to a bureaucrat in a very silly wig to
determine who spoke the truth according to Britain's notoriously
unjust libel laws is going to challenge the idea that people should
have the freedom to make up their own minds.
>bm> Hiding behind a government ban/reprimand, perhaps?
>
>Why try and claim it is a ban. The programme makers didn't even have
>to say sorry.
They'd done nothing wrong, that's why. Unless offending Green
sensibilities deserves an apology (IMO it deserves a medal).
Richard Caley
In article <3534d134...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac (bm) writes:
bm> LM doesn't think they say "silly" things. LM is greatly concerned
bm> that they appear to say "common sense" things because hardly anyone is
bm> challenging them.
Hardly anyone challenges the UFOnauts and so on.
bm> and why is Green thinking now the mainstream?
>> It isn't. when did a mainstream politician last say we shoudl start
>> shrinking the economy etc?
bm> When the East Asian crisis hit and it was blamed on the economic
bm> growth in those countries?
Yes, but I don't think anyone said it was because the planet was
rebelling.
bm> When Gordon Brown slapped heavy increases on road tax and petrol
bm> because cars pollute and the freedom to travel by car must be
bm> restricted?
Oh, they'll put in a few things they take to be green sound-bites.
You won't find the government selling all it's cars though.
If all you worry about is that pseudo-green word games are common in
politics, then I think you must be desperate for sopmething to be
worried about.
>> No, the rules being you have to pretend to be objective if you want to
>> label what you are doing `documentary'.
bm> How was the programme unobjective?
All programmes are subjective. Unless you want to make one without
human invoplvement that will always be true. However there are
conventional rules about how to pretend not to be, and all that has
happened is that somoene has decided this particualr programme didn't
pretend properly.
bm> The whole point, Richard, is to change the "rules."
>> Then set up your own TV station. If C4 gives you free time, you have
>> to play by C4's rules. C4's rules include having the ITC look at
>> things.
bm> I'm surprised you haven't followed this logic through and
bm> suggested that LM set up its own its own country, if not its own
bm> planet.
If you accept free air time from C4, you shouldn't be suprised if you
have to play by C4's rules. Why is that a problem?
If the programme makers had payed for the air time they would only
have had to abide by the fairly trivial restrictions placed on
advertisers. Of course, they would have had to pay their own way
rather than depending on charity.
So far as I can see, the programme makers wanted to be part of the
establishment and yet to not act like the establishment. Clearly
stupid. You don't change the rules by signing up to them, breaking
them in a trivial way and then whining when soemone notes that you
have.
bm> I can't quite see how turning to a bureaucrat in a very silly wig to
bm> determine who spoke the truth according to Britain's notoriously
bm> unjust libel laws is going to challenge the idea that people should
bm> have the freedom to make up their own minds.
If the programme makers were to show that the greens comments were
broadcast as they were given then even if the case whent against them
they would have won.
>> Why try and claim it is a ban. The programme makers didn't even have
>> to say sorry.
bm> They'd done nothing wrong, that's why.
Fine, they did nothing wrong and didn't have to say they did. What's
the problem?
Why whine about a `ban'?
Big Mac
On 15 Apr 1998 16:58:55 +0100, Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>bm> When Gordon Brown slapped heavy increases on road tax and petrol
>bm> because cars pollute and the freedom to travel by car must be
>bm> restricted?
>
>Oh, they'll put in a few things they take to be green sound-bites.
>
>You won't find the government selling all it's cars though.
>
>If all you worry about is that pseudo-green word games are common in
>politics, then I think you must be desperate for sopmething to be
>worried about.
Thanks a lot. Those "word games" mean I'm around 750 pounds a year
worse off - I've been forcibly conscripted into the government's war
on transport, as inspired by Green thinking that you claim has no
influence.
[rest of this tedious Caleyesque pendantry snipped]
Richard Caley
In article <3534db68...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac (bm) writes:
>> If all you worry about is that pseudo-green word games are common in
>> politics, then I think you must be desperate for sopmething to be
>> worried about.
bm> Thanks a lot. Those "word games" mean I'm around 750 pounds a year
bm> worse off - I've been forcibly conscripted into the government's war
bm> on transport, as inspired by Green thinking that you claim has no
bm> influence.
Crap. There is no green thinking involved. Only Brown thinking.
You are worse off because Brown decided he needed more money to pay
off whoever he needs to pay off to get Labour back in at the next
election.
A few years ago it would have been justified in terms of the glories
of market economics. Before that in terms of social needs and
redistribution. Before that the glories of empire. The word games
change, the policies are still based on the same political
expediencies.
And if refusing to be impressed by whineing about establishment
handouts coming with establishment conditions is `pendantry' then I'm
glad to be a pendant.
Big Mac
On 15 Apr 1998 17:23:27 +0100, Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
>In article <3534db68...@news.xara.com>, Big Mac (bm) writes:
>
>>> If all you worry about is that pseudo-green word games are common in
>>> politics, then I think you must be desperate for sopmething to be
>>> worried about.
>
>bm> Thanks a lot. Those "word games" mean I'm around 750 pounds a year
>bm> worse off - I've been forcibly conscripted into the government's war
>bm> on transport, as inspired by Green thinking that you claim has no
>bm> influence.
>
>Crap. There is no green thinking involved. Only Brown thinking.
Right, yeah. That's why he justified it by reference to the need to
tackle pollution and limit the "damage" the car is doing to the
environment. That's why all the Greens hailed it as a good move - and
then demanded more of the same.
>You are worse off because Brown decided he needed more money to pay
>off whoever he needs to pay off to get Labour back in at the next
>election.
And who might that be - the Martians? Or are you suggesting that he's
going to give me all the money back he's taken from me in extra Green
taxes so as to buy my vote later on? I have news for him - it's not
for sale.
>A few years ago it would have been justified in terms of the glories
>of market economics. Before that in terms of social needs and
>redistribution. Before that the glories of empire. The word games
>change, the policies are still based on the same political
>expediencies.
Yeah yeah Richard, we all know that you are so cynical that you can
see through every capitalist deceit and regard them all as equally
ridiculous subterfuges to wallop the gullible poor punter who lacks
your acumen and suss. Some of us reckon that explaining reality and
changing it takes a little bit more than the eternal refrain "they're
all rotten cheats and they always have been and always will be",
however. What can I say to you other than - stop whining and do
something about it?
>And if refusing to be impressed by whineing about establishment
>handouts coming with establishment conditions is `pendantry' then I'm
>glad to be a pendant.
And its hardly news that your cynicism is also your excuse for doing
nothing and letting them walk all over you - "stop whining - what did
you expect - they're all rotten cheats".
I think we'll just call this thread quits for now as we've now plumbed
the depths of your profundity.
<spelling flame>
ps. Pendants are the things you wear round your neck - or do you mean
millstones?
</spelling flame>